Post on 18-Dec-2015
Developing an Index of Stream – Wetland – Riparian Condition
Brooks et al. 2009
LEVEL 1 (LANDSCAPE FROM GIS)
LEVEL 2 (RAPID FIELD ASSESSMENT)
LEVEL 3 (INTENSIVE FIELD ASSESSMENT)
How do our estimates of condition compare across levels of measurement resolution and across geographic scales?
Mayer et al. 2005 (EPA)
Measurement Type Site-Level Metric
Adjacent Land Use Buffer score
Riparian Classification Wetland presence/ absence; Average cover type (~ biomass index)
Bankfull Parameters Incision ratio; Width/ depth ratio
Wetland Classification Wetland presence/ absence; # of wetland types
Hydrology, Wetland and Soils Assessment Wetness of wettest wetland on site
Vegetation Assessment (Trees)
Basal area, total and by species; Number of species; Median DBH
Invasive Species % cover of invasive species, total and by species
Stressor ChecklistTotal number of stressors, and number of stressor categories, for stream, floodplain, wetlands
Stream Habitat Assessment (SHA) SHA score (normalized to a 0 -1 scale)
Otherreference site (yes/ no); stream order class; beaver site (yes/ no)
EXAMPLES OF METRICS COMPUTED FROM SWR DATA
SHA ScoreIncision Ratio
# StreamStressors
Stream-Wetland-Riparian (SWR) Index
Buff0-300 Basal Area Invasives # FP-WLStressors
Floodplain-WetlandCondition
Conceptual Model of Condition Used for SWR Index
Stream Habitat Assessment (SHA) variables:(each gets 1-10 BPJ rating)
Epifaunal substrateEmbeddednessVelocity/Depth regimeSediment depositionChannel flowChannel alterationFrequency of rifflesBank stabilityVegetative protectionRiparian vegetative zone width
STRESSORS - Brooks et al. SWR – site and buffer (<30 m, 30-100 m)Hydrologic modification (+ or -, ditch, fill, dead trees, stormwater, roads)Sedimentation/Erosion (deposits, intensive grazing, active construc) Dissolved oxygen (excessive density of algal mats, excessive deposition of organic waster, discharges of organic wastewater) Contaminant toxicity (pt discharges, severe veg stress, chem odors) Vegetation alteration (mowing, moderate grazing, brush cutting) Eutrophication (discharges, heavy algal mats, direct discharges from septic or wastewater treatment systems) Acidification (atmosph. deposition, AMD, adjacent mine spoil piles) Turbidity (mod. Concentration suspended solids in water column, obvious sediment plumes) Thermal alteration (significant increases in water temperature, recent human-induced canopy removal) Salinity (obvious increase in dissolved salts)Habitat fragmentation - handled w/ Landscape Index
LEVEL 1 (LANDSCAPE FROM GIS)
• overall watershed• contributing area to sample point• 1-km circle centered on sample point
LEVEL 2 (RAPID FIELD ASSESSMENT)
• SWR – single site• SWR – average for watershed or contributing area
LEVEL 3 (INTENSIVE FIELD ASSESSMENT) – existing data
• benthic IBI, fish IBI, NO3
LANDSCAPE METRICS (FROM GIS)• Percent Forest• Land Development Intensity coefficient (LDI)• Impervious Surface• Mean Forest Patch Size• [Core Forest/ Total Forest]
LANDSCAPE INDEX = AVERAGE [ % forest score +
(LDI score + Impervious Surface score)/ 2 + (Forest Patch Size score + Core Forest score) /2 ]
LANDSCAPE SCORES
2. contributing area to IBI sample point
LEVEL 1 – LANDSCAPE INDEX
1. overall watershed3. 1-km circle centered on SWR sample point
2. How well does average site-level physical condition in the upstream contributing area reflect biotic condition?
r pBenthic IBI 0.549 0.000 ***
Fish IBI 0.493 0.000 ***
NO3 0.400 0.002 **
Correlation between SWR Index and MBSS (n=60):
Avg. SWR Index in MBSS point contributing area vs. IBI score
ST
RM
-B2
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0R
epau
po
Aho
skie
Sai
nt M
ary'
s A
Sai
nt M
ary'
s B
War
e R
iver
Grin
dle
Cre
ek
Littl
e C
onte
ntne
a
Pam
unke
y
Sou
thea
st C
reek
Bac
k R
iver
Man
tua
Cat
tail
Cre
ek
Mid
dle
Cre
ek
Upp
er P
atux
ent
Chi
ckah
omin
y
Gw
ynn
Fal
ls
Buf
falo
Cre
ek
Chr
istia
n C
reek
Cle
arfie
ld C
reek
Whi
te D
eer
Cre
ek
Wis
coni
sco
Mid
dle
Riv
er
Upp
er P
enns
Cre
ek
Spr
ing
Cre
ek
Con
odog
uine
t A
Con
odog
uine
t B Wtrshed
Agr
icul
ture
For
est/
Low
Slo
Mix
ed/ H
igh
Nod
Mix
ed/ L
ow N
oda
Urb
an
Agr
icul
ture
Mix
ed/ L
ow N
oda
Urb
an
Agr
icul
ture
For
est/
Hig
h S
l
Mix
ed/ H
igh
Nod
Mix
ed/ L
ow N
oda
Urb
an ClusterDescrip
Coastal Plain Piedmont Ridge & Valley PhysioRegion
Within-watershed Variability of SWR Index
Sc
ale
com
parin
g so
cial
cho
ices
Ref. Std>75%forest
Moderate40-75%
Low25-
40%
Ref. std 30-50% forest
Ref. Std. 40-75% tree cover
Forest
Agriculture
Urban
Social choice D
Social choice D
Scal
e co
mpa
ring
cond
ition
Watersheds with best agreement between Level 1 (landscape) vs. Level 2 (site level):
Watersheds where Level 2 (site level) score >> Level 1 (landscape) score
Mayer et al. 2005 (EPA)
Boyd – Ecosystem Services 2010
Hawes & Smith 2005
Yetter, IBIslope & stream points
Yetter
Yetter
Harte 2013
Selected Ecosystem Services – to Final Services (HOUSEHOLD OR INDIVIDUAL FARM/BUSINESS FOCUS; ON-SITE VS. OFF-SITE BENEFITS&COSTS)
1 - WATER PURIFICATION (HAVING CLEANER WATER; IMPROVED WATER QUALITY;
RETAIN, REMOVE, TRANSFORM NUTRIENTS - (preventing excess nutrients entering stream – links to healthy stream for fishing, livestock drinking water, avoid or eliminate regulatory “impaired” water determination)
2- WATER-BASED RECREATION (FISHING, MAYBE SMALL BOATING)
(need to parse among coldwater, coolwater, and warmwater fisheries) 3- ECOLOGICAL HEALTH (NON-USE VALUES FOR ENTIRE SYSTEM OF
STREAM-WETLAND-RIPARIAN BIODIVERSITY) 4- FLOOD STORAGE & DESYNCHRONIZATION (reduced damage to property and crops;
need to tie to measurement of flood risk, then $), whereas riparian buffers filter upland sources of nutrients moving toward waterbodies, properly
connectedflooding regime allows transformation of nutrients by the floodplain and
wetlands when stream overflows (therefore, less incised due to land use proportions)
5 – CARBON SEQUESTRATION (ESTIMATES BASED ON LAND USE CONVERSION
(e.g., crop to forest) or VEGETATION/SOIL BASED CARBON PER UNIT AREA)
Valuation of Ecosystem Services
to Final Services
Ecosystem Services to be Valued
• Criteria– Potentially large value– Know linkages between intervention and service– Have estimates of economic value
• Initial List– Values tied to direct use
• Fishing/Boating/Swimming
– Nonuse Values and indirect use values• Existence value for Habitat/Ecosystem Health• Carbon Sequestration
– Pockeboot Impacts• Water Purification Costs• Property damage from floods
Recreational Use
• Model of recreational fishing behavior• Can calculate benefit to anglers of spatially explicit changes in
fishing quality– One quality measure used: National Fish Habitat Partnership
Habitat Degradation Risk Index• Based largely on landscape upstream
– Can value a change in HDRI• Need to know linkage between intervention and HDRI
• Much less info available on swimming and boating, but we are looking
NFHP Database
Nonuse Values
• Measure using general population surveys to measure WTP for improvements in stream/river quality– Water Quality – Biological Health
• Need to know linkages between intervention and water quality and/or biological health
Water Quality Scales
• National Sanitation Foundation WQI• 9 water quality measures, including nitrates, total
phosphate and turbidity
– qi = quantile of that measure
– wi = weight for that measure
• WQI ranges from 0 to 100• Can be calculated based on subset of WQ measures
Water Quality Scales
• Water Quality Ladders– Drinkable 95– Swimmable 70– Fishable 50– Boatable 25– Suitable for outings 15– Not suitable for any use 5
• Measure WTP to move up ladder• Scale comparable to WQI?
Biological Health
• Biotic Indices/scales developed by team 3• WTP for changes in biological health – MidAtlantic
Slope Consortium survey• Need to be able to link the two
Carbon Sequestration
• Intervention may affect carbon sequestration– Forested buffer vs cropland– No-til vs conventional
• Fed Govt has standard dollar values for social cost of carbon
• Need to know carbon seq effect of intervention
Others
• Water Purification– Impact of intervention on criteria water pollutants downstream– Population using surface water supplies downstream of intervention– Average impact on treatment cost
• Property damage from floods– Change in downstream flood frequency– Downstream properties at risk